Skip to main content

Down in the Canyon

Writing in The Western Standard, Father Raymond DeSouza tries to find something positive in "the bottom of the canyon":
Recognizing homosexual unions as marriages means, in principle, that marriage has nothing to do with the natural order of sexual differentiation and the procreation of children. That’s not a slippery slope. That’s the bottom of the canyon. Here [however] is promising ground for family policy reform. Now that there are no “barriers” to marriage for anyone, why not advance an agenda that seeks to strengthen marriage across the board? The best place to start will be to remove the equivalent-to-marriage treatment given now to common-law couples, whether opposite-sex or same-sex. The rise of common-law unions as equivalent to marriage has greatly weakened the incentive to marry and make permanent commitments. Now that we are all agreed that marriage is a good thing--so good that even homosexuals must have it--why not move ahead to restrict the benefits of marriage to, say, married couples alone?
I am not so optimistic. I think that if you try and impose strict monogamy on gay couples, they will cry, again, 'discrimination.' They will claim that they are living a 'different but equal' sort of marriage and imposing hetero values on it is a form of bigotry. And we, in our pistol whipped fashion, will once again grab the horsehair shirt and ask them how long we must wear it for, never once cluing in that the word is out. To get anything at all in the new Canada, all one has to do is cry a lot and chant, discrimination, discrimination, discrimination... It is the equivalent of a nuclear strike in Canadian politics, the attack from which there is no comeback. And here is why- we no longer believe that politics is about making real decisions; weighing and balancing competing and conflicting claims of rightness and authority, making a thought out decision and standing by it. We are ruled by adolescent sycophants because we as voters can't rise beyond a child's notion of fairness. And why is that? Again I blame the electorate - we don't think things through and as a result our voting is all about appearances in the here and now. De Souza's canyon metaphor is apt - the lower you go the harder it is to see ahead, or behind.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi